Water immersion: increase DOF

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Harold keller, Dec 28, 2009.

  1. Someone once told me that one effect of photographing live fish in a
    glass aquarium is that the refractive index of the water somehow
    increases the depth of field.

    Has anyone else heard of this? Does it sound plausible?

    Harold Keller
     
    Harold keller, Dec 28, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Harold keller

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:36:02 GMT, (Harold
    keller) wrote:

    >Someone once told me that one effect of photographing live fish in a
    >glass aquarium is that the refractive index of the water somehow
    >increases the depth of field.
    >
    >Has anyone else heard of this? Does it sound plausible?


    The speed of light in water is less than it is in air. The effect is
    to longitudinally compress the geometry of light rays in front of the
    lens. Everything gets compressed, including the depth of field.

    As far as your question goes, the actual depth of field is reduced but
    the apparent depth of field is increased. I am sure that answer will
    leave you increasingly confused. :)



    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Dec 29, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Harold keller

    NameHere Guest

    On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 21:39:08 +1300, Eric Stevens <>
    wrote:

    >The speed of light in water is less than it is in air.


    Which leads to the question, how can the speed of light ever be used as a
    mathematical constant? Since there's no such thing as a perfect vacuum,
    there's no such thing as the constant "C" known as the speed-of-light. It's
    all opinion, no matter which way you look at it.
     
    NameHere, Dec 29, 2009
    #3
  4. Harold keller

    Ray Fischer Guest

    NameHere <> wrote:
    >On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 21:39:08 +1300, Eric Stevens <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>The speed of light in water is less than it is in air.

    >
    >Which leads to the question, how can the speed of light ever be used as a
    >mathematical constant? Since there's no such thing as a perfect vacuum,
    >there's no such thing as the constant "C" known as the speed-of-light. It's
    >all opinion, no matter which way you look at it.


    LOL! So if your opinion is that the speed of light is 1000mph then it
    must be so? You're pretty silly.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Dec 29, 2009
    #4
  5. >>Someone once told me that one effect of photographing live fish in a
    >>glass aquarium is that the refractive index of the water somehow
    >>increases the depth of field.
    >>
    >>Has anyone else heard of this? Does it sound plausible?

    >
    >The speed of light in water is less than it is in air. The effect is
    >to longitudinally compress the geometry of light rays in front of the
    >lens. Everything gets compressed, including the depth of field.
    >
    >As far as your question goes, the actual depth of field is reduced but
    >the apparent depth of field is increased. I am sure that answer will
    >leave you increasingly confused. :)
    >
    >
    >
    >Eric Stevens



    Do you mean it is reduced within the water, but appears greater from
    outside the aquarium/water?

    On a practical level, if my camera is outside of the aquarium, and I
    am photogrpahing fish swimming inside it, does the DOF become less
    critical, or increased, in proportion to the refractive index of
    water?

    Harold Keller
     
    Harold keller, Dec 29, 2009
    #5
  6. Harold keller

    NameHere Guest

    On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:34:37 GMT, (Harold keller)
    wrote:

    >>>Someone once told me that one effect of photographing live fish in a
    >>>glass aquarium is that the refractive index of the water somehow
    >>>increases the depth of field.
    >>>
    >>>Has anyone else heard of this? Does it sound plausible?

    >>
    >>The speed of light in water is less than it is in air. The effect is
    >>to longitudinally compress the geometry of light rays in front of the
    >>lens. Everything gets compressed, including the depth of field.
    >>
    >>As far as your question goes, the actual depth of field is reduced but
    >>the apparent depth of field is increased. I am sure that answer will
    >>leave you increasingly confused. :)
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>Eric Stevens

    >
    >
    >Do you mean it is reduced within the water, but appears greater from
    >outside the aquarium/water?
    >
    >On a practical level, if my camera is outside of the aquarium, and I
    >am photogrpahing fish swimming inside it, does the DOF become less
    >critical, or increased, in proportion to the refractive index of
    >water?
    >
    >Harold Keller


    Let's see if we can explain this in a way you'll understand.

    Anything within the water will have the distances between them
    foreshortened. Meaning, all subjects within the water will appear closer
    and more compressed, back to front.

    Let's, for the sake of argument, suppose you have set your camera to have a
    useful DOF of 3 ft. for your chosen subject distances, of 2 to 5 ft. away
    from your camera lens. Outside of that aquarium all subjects from 2 to 5
    ft. will be in useful focus. Let's say the aquarium itself is 3 ft. in
    depth, front to back. But due to the refraction of water it will appear to
    have a depth (front to back) of only 2 ft. (Slight exaggeration for
    explanation only.) Therefore, everything within that tank will be in focus,
    as well as anything one foot in front of the tank will still fit within
    your 3 ft. DOF range (you still have 1 ft. of DOF to use up, 2+1=3). In
    effect, you are now getting a 4 ft. DOF range because 3 ft. of the
    available distance has been compressed to a 2 ft. depth by the refraction
    of water.

    It matters not if your camera is within the water or outside of the water.
    What matters are any subjects within the water. All of them will appear to
    have their distances between each other more compressed, compared to the
    same distances they would all have outside of the water. Therefore, the
    useful DOF set by your camera's optics becomes less critical for all
    subjects within the water.

    On an even more practical level, I have photographed many fish in aquariums
    in the past (as well as in their native environments). Never did I concern
    myself with this issue because it's all relative to each subject, framing,
    distance, and light levels at the time for each photograph, no two
    circumstances ever the same. I just previewed the DOF in my viewfinder,
    selected a useful aperture, and took their images. Are you asking this
    again because you really have a need for this information and truly can't
    grasp what is happening? Or are you just another troll thinking up silly
    questions and feigning stupidity for the attention it will bring to you.
     
    NameHere, Dec 29, 2009
    #6
  7. Harold keller

    Chrlz Guest

    On Dec 29, 6:39 pm, Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:36:02 GMT, (Harold
    >
    > keller) wrote:
    > >Someone once told me that one effect of photographing live fish in a
    > >glass aquarium is that the refractive index of the water somehow
    > >increases the depth of field.

    >
    > >Has anyone else heard of this? Does it sound plausible?

    >
    > The speed of light in water is less than it is in air. The effect is
    > to longitudinally compress the geometry of light rays in front of the
    > lens. Everything gets compressed, including the depth of field.
    >
    > As far as your question goes, the actual depth of field is reduced but
    > the apparent depth of field is increased. I am sure that answer will
    > leave you increasingly confused.    :)


    ????
    Indeed it does...!

    Eric, can you provide some links/references/whatever on this subject?
    Perhaps even a diagram of this 'longitudinal compression of light
    rays' and how it then results in increased dof? Or a modified dof
    formula, given the existing one has no refractive index component?
    Surely, given the amount of specialised underwater cameras/lenses that
    are out there, such a thing would exist...
     
    Chrlz, Dec 30, 2009
    #7
  8. Harold keller

    Guest

    On Dec 29, 7:34 am, (Harold keller) wrote:
    > >>Someone once told me that one effect of photographing live fish in a
    > >>glass aquarium is that the refractive index of the water somehow
    > >>increases the depth of field.

    >
    > >>Has anyone else heard of this? Does it sound plausible?

    >
    > >The speed of light in water is less than it is in air. The effect is
    > >to longitudinally compress the geometry of light rays in front of the
    > >lens. Everything gets compressed, including the depth of field.

    >
    > >As far as your question goes, the actual depth of field is reduced but
    > >the apparent depth of field is increased. I am sure that answer will
    > >leave you increasingly confused.    :)

    >
    > >Eric Stevens

    >
    > Do you mean it is reduced within the water, but appears greater from
    > outside the aquarium/water?
    >
    > On a practical level, if my camera is outside of the aquarium, and I
    > am photogrpahing fish swimming inside it, does the DOF become less
    > critical, or increased,  in proportion to the refractive index of
    > water?
    >
    > Harold Keller


    I don't think it really matters much. The camera will see the same
    thing your eyes are seeing, so it shouldn't be much of an issue.
    I took a picture of a tank about three weeks ago and it was basically
    point and shoot. Also took some HD video of it. That came out real
    well.
    Here is one example.. Not the greatest picture as I was just grabbing
    a couple of snaps off it, but as you can see, the camera saw the same
    thing my eyes did, so not much to worry about as far as taking
    pictures
    of it.
    http://home.comcast.net/~disk100/fish.jpg
     
    , Dec 30, 2009
    #8
  9. Harold keller

    MikeWhy Guest

    wrote:
    > On Dec 29, 7:34 am, (Harold keller) wrote:
    >>>> Someone once told me that one effect of photographing live fish in
    >>>> a glass aquarium is that the refractive index of the water somehow
    >>>> increases the depth of field.

    >>
    >>>> Has anyone else heard of this? Does it sound plausible?

    >>
    >>> The speed of light in water is less than it is in air. The effect is
    >>> to longitudinally compress the geometry of light rays in front of
    >>> the lens. Everything gets compressed, including the depth of field.

    >>
    >>> As far as your question goes, the actual depth of field is reduced
    >>> but the apparent depth of field is increased. I am sure that answer
    >>> will leave you increasingly confused. :)

    >>
    >>> Eric Stevens

    >>
    >> Do you mean it is reduced within the water, but appears greater from
    >> outside the aquarium/water?
    >>
    >> On a practical level, if my camera is outside of the aquarium, and I
    >> am photogrpahing fish swimming inside it, does the DOF become less
    >> critical, or increased, in proportion to the refractive index of
    >> water?
    >>
    >> Harold Keller

    >
    > I don't think it really matters much. The camera will see the same
    > thing your eyes are seeing, so it shouldn't be much of an issue.


    The liquid/air interface refracts light and so acts as a lens, and so
    changes the effective focal length. Anecdotally, wearing a mask or goggles
    underwater without corrective lenses lessens the effect of my myopia. The
    water serves to shorten the effective focal length. It would be good to see
    an analysis.
     
    MikeWhy, Dec 30, 2009
    #9
  10. Harold keller

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 05:08:01 -0800 (PST), Chrlz
    <> wrote:

    >On Dec 29, 6:39 pm, Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:36:02 GMT, (Harold
    >>
    >> keller) wrote:
    >> >Someone once told me that one effect of photographing live fish in a
    >> >glass aquarium is that the refractive index of the water somehow
    >> >increases the depth of field.

    >>
    >> >Has anyone else heard of this? Does it sound plausible?

    >>
    >> The speed of light in water is less than it is in air. The effect is
    >> to longitudinally compress the geometry of light rays in front of the
    >> lens. Everything gets compressed, including the depth of field.
    >>
    >> As far as your question goes, the actual depth of field is reduced but
    >> the apparent depth of field is increased. I am sure that answer will
    >> leave you increasingly confused.    :)

    >
    >????
    >Indeed it does...!
    >
    >Eric, can you provide some links/references/whatever on this subject?
    >Perhaps even a diagram of this 'longitudinal compression of light
    >rays' and how it then results in increased dof? Or a modified dof
    >formula, given the existing one has no refractive index component?
    >Surely, given the amount of specialised underwater cameras/lenses that
    >are out there, such a thing would exist...



    Its not quite what you asked for but I found this:
    http://www.phy.ntnu.edu.tw/ntnujava/index.php?topic=378.0

    Its fun but you need to be able to run JAVA



    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Dec 30, 2009
    #10
  11. NameHere <> wrote:
    > On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 21:39:08 +1300, Eric Stevens <>
    > wrote:


    >>The speed of light in water is less than it is in air.


    > Which leads to the question, how can the speed of light ever be used as a
    > mathematical constant? Since there's no such thing as a perfect vacuum,
    > there's no such thing as the constant "C" known as the speed-of-light. It's
    > all opinion, no matter which way you look at it.


    It's not a mathematical constant, it's a physical constant. And the
    same goes for all the fundamental basic constants of physics. Did you
    go to one of those modern schools where they don't teach science?

    --
    Chris Malcolm
     
    Chris Malcolm, Dec 30, 2009
    #11
  12. Harold keller

    Chrlz Guest

    On Dec 31, 6:56 am, Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 05:08:01 -0800 (PST), Chrlz
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > >On Dec 29, 6:39 pm, Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > >> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:36:02 GMT, (Harold

    >
    > >> keller) wrote:
    > >> >Someone once told me that one effect of photographing live fish in a
    > >> >glass aquarium is that the refractive index of the water somehow
    > >> >increases the depth of field.

    >
    > >> >Has anyone else heard of this? Does it sound plausible?

    >
    > >> The speed of light in water is less than it is in air. The effect is
    > >> to longitudinally compress the geometry of light rays in front of the
    > >> lens. Everything gets compressed, including the depth of field.

    >
    > >> As far as your question goes, the actual depth of field is reduced but
    > >> the apparent depth of field is increased. I am sure that answer will
    > >> leave you increasingly confused.    :)

    >
    > >????
    > >Indeed it does...!

    >
    > >Eric, can you provide some links/references/whatever on this subject?
    > >Perhaps even a diagram of this 'longitudinal compression of light
    > >rays' and how it then results in increased dof?  Or a modified dof
    > >formula, given the existing one has no refractive index component?
    > >Surely, given the amount of specialised underwater cameras/lenses that
    > >are out there, such a thing would exist...

    >
    > Its not quite what you asked for but I found this:http://www.phy.ntnu.edu..tw/ntnujava/index.php?topic=378.0
    >
    > Its fun but you need to be able to run JAVA
    >
    > Eric Stevens


    Thanks, Eric, that's an interesting sim. I understand the magnifying/
    foreshortening effect... but I'm intrigued on what sort of 'true',
    measurable, depth of field change occurs.

    It's interesting that the magnifying effect of water is often referred
    to, and people with myopia (shortsightedness) report seeing better
    underwater (eg, me..). But rectifying myopia, normally, requires a
    *de*magnifying effect..

    That does all suggest a true increase in perceived depth of field, and
    yet I can't see any thing much about this topic, even targeting
    underwater photography sites.. I'm just trying to tie this all
    together a little more scientifically/mathematically.
     
    Chrlz, Dec 31, 2009
    #12
  13. Harold keller

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 16:38:11 -0800 (PST), Chrlz
    <> wrote:

    >On Dec 31, 6:56 am, Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 05:08:01 -0800 (PST), Chrlz
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> <> wrote:
    >> >On Dec 29, 6:39 pm, Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >> >> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:36:02 GMT, (Harold

    >>
    >> >> keller) wrote:
    >> >> >Someone once told me that one effect of photographing live fish in a
    >> >> >glass aquarium is that the refractive index of the water somehow
    >> >> >increases the depth of field.

    >>
    >> >> >Has anyone else heard of this? Does it sound plausible?

    >>
    >> >> The speed of light in water is less than it is in air. The effect is
    >> >> to longitudinally compress the geometry of light rays in front of the
    >> >> lens. Everything gets compressed, including the depth of field.

    >>
    >> >> As far as your question goes, the actual depth of field is reduced but
    >> >> the apparent depth of field is increased. I am sure that answer will
    >> >> leave you increasingly confused.    :)

    >>
    >> >????
    >> >Indeed it does...!

    >>
    >> >Eric, can you provide some links/references/whatever on this subject?
    >> >Perhaps even a diagram of this 'longitudinal compression of light
    >> >rays' and how it then results in increased dof?  Or a modified dof
    >> >formula, given the existing one has no refractive index component?
    >> >Surely, given the amount of specialised underwater cameras/lenses that
    >> >are out there, such a thing would exist...

    >>
    >> Its not quite what you asked for but I found this:http://www.phy.ntnu.edu.tw/ntnujava/index.php?topic=378.0
    >>
    >> Its fun but you need to be able to run JAVA
    >>
    >> Eric Stevens

    >
    >Thanks, Eric, that's an interesting sim. I understand the magnifying/
    >foreshortening effect... but I'm intrigued on what sort of 'true',
    >measurable, depth of field change occurs.
    >
    >It's interesting that the magnifying effect of water is often referred
    >to, and people with myopia (shortsightedness) report seeing better
    >underwater (eg, me..). But rectifying myopia, normally, requires a
    >*de*magnifying effect..
    >
    >That does all suggest a true increase in perceived depth of field, and
    >yet I can't see any thing much about this topic, even targeting
    >underwater photography sites.. I'm just trying to tie this all
    >together a little more scientifically/mathematically.


    A standard diagram of the way a camera works has rays of light coming
    from the point of focus on the object and being bent where they pass
    through the lens. Hopefully they are focussed to a point where they
    meet the focal plane. I won't go into all the hoopla about depth of
    field but in the real world it is theoretically possible to put in
    markers at the front and rear edges respectively of the in-focus
    field.

    Now without changing the camera setup in any way, consider what
    happens when you are photographing the inside of a fish tank through
    its glass sides. The bending of the light rays as they leave the water
    causes the point at which they focus on the object to be brought
    closer to the camera. Yet, as far as the camera is concerned the rays
    of light are still entering the lens at exactly the same angle as
    before. But, if you put in markers at the front and back of the
    in-focus field you will discover that they are both closer to the
    camera and closer together than in the earlier situation when the
    light rays were entirely through air.

    If you then reach into the top of the tank with a pair of calipers or
    similar and then measure their spread once you have got them out of
    the water you will find the depth of focus is less than it was in air.
    If the depth of field in air was (say) 10cm your calipers might tell
    you (again, say) that the actual depth of field in water is only 8cm.
    That's why I said "the actual depth of field is reduced".

    If you now look at things from the point of view of the camera. The
    light rays entering the camera still do so at the original angle and
    the camera still thinks (do cameras think?) that the depth of field,
    as it appears to the camera, is 10cm. But the actual depth of field
    really is still only 8cm. That's why I said the "apparent depth of
    field is increased" (over and above the actual depth of field). This
    would be much easier to explain if I could draw a diagram.



    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Dec 31, 2009
    #13
  14. Harold keller

    NameHere Guest

    On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 23:50:28 +1300, Eric Stevens <>
    wrote:

    >On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 16:38:11 -0800 (PST), Chrlz
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>On Dec 31, 6:56 am, Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 05:08:01 -0800 (PST), Chrlz
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>> >On Dec 29, 6:39 pm, Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>> >> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:36:02 GMT, (Harold
    >>>
    >>> >> keller) wrote:
    >>> >> >Someone once told me that one effect of photographing live fish in a
    >>> >> >glass aquarium is that the refractive index of the water somehow
    >>> >> >increases the depth of field.
    >>>
    >>> >> >Has anyone else heard of this? Does it sound plausible?
    >>>
    >>> >> The speed of light in water is less than it is in air. The effect is
    >>> >> to longitudinally compress the geometry of light rays in front of the
    >>> >> lens. Everything gets compressed, including the depth of field.
    >>>
    >>> >> As far as your question goes, the actual depth of field is reduced but
    >>> >> the apparent depth of field is increased. I am sure that answer will
    >>> >> leave you increasingly confused.    :)
    >>>
    >>> >????
    >>> >Indeed it does...!
    >>>
    >>> >Eric, can you provide some links/references/whatever on this subject?
    >>> >Perhaps even a diagram of this 'longitudinal compression of light
    >>> >rays' and how it then results in increased dof?  Or a modified dof
    >>> >formula, given the existing one has no refractive index component?
    >>> >Surely, given the amount of specialised underwater cameras/lenses that
    >>> >are out there, such a thing would exist...
    >>>
    >>> Its not quite what you asked for but I found this:http://www.phy.ntnu.edu.tw/ntnujava/index.php?topic=378.0
    >>>
    >>> Its fun but you need to be able to run JAVA
    >>>
    >>> Eric Stevens

    >>
    >>Thanks, Eric, that's an interesting sim. I understand the magnifying/
    >>foreshortening effect... but I'm intrigued on what sort of 'true',
    >>measurable, depth of field change occurs.
    >>
    >>It's interesting that the magnifying effect of water is often referred
    >>to, and people with myopia (shortsightedness) report seeing better
    >>underwater (eg, me..). But rectifying myopia, normally, requires a
    >>*de*magnifying effect..
    >>
    >>That does all suggest a true increase in perceived depth of field, and
    >>yet I can't see any thing much about this topic, even targeting
    >>underwater photography sites.. I'm just trying to tie this all
    >>together a little more scientifically/mathematically.

    >
    >A standard diagram of the way a camera works has rays of light coming
    >from the point of focus on the object and being bent where they pass
    >through the lens. Hopefully they are focussed to a point where they
    >meet the focal plane. I won't go into all the hoopla about depth of
    >field but in the real world it is theoretically possible to put in
    >markers at the front and rear edges respectively of the in-focus
    >field.
    >
    >Now without changing the camera setup in any way, consider what
    >happens when you are photographing the inside of a fish tank through
    >its glass sides. The bending of the light rays as they leave the water
    >causes the point at which they focus on the object to be brought
    >closer to the camera. Yet, as far as the camera is concerned the rays
    >of light are still entering the lens at exactly the same angle as
    >before. But, if you put in markers at the front and back of the
    >in-focus field you will discover that they are both closer to the
    >camera and closer together than in the earlier situation when the
    >light rays were entirely through air.
    >
    >If you then reach into the top of the tank with a pair of calipers or
    >similar and then measure their spread once you have got them out of
    >the water you will find the depth of focus is less than it was in air.
    >If the depth of field in air was (say) 10cm your calipers might tell
    >you (again, say) that the actual depth of field in water is only 8cm.
    >That's why I said "the actual depth of field is reduced".
    >
    >If you now look at things from the point of view of the camera. The
    >light rays entering the camera still do so at the original angle and
    >the camera still thinks (do cameras think?) that the depth of field,
    >as it appears to the camera, is 10cm. But the actual depth of field
    >really is still only 8cm. That's why I said the "apparent depth of
    >field is increased" (over and above the actual depth of field). This
    >would be much easier to explain if I could draw a diagram.
    >
    >
    >
    >Eric Stevens


    LOL!!! And you think this doofus is going to understand what you just said?
    The very same thing has already been explained at least 5 different ways.
    You and I are being TROLLED.

    But if you insist in a "diagram":

    With water:

    camera-> glass|water fish fish fish fish water|glass

    No water

    camera-> glass|air fish fish fish fish air|glass

    replace "fish" in the second example with "dead fish" due to being only in
    air, "fish" was only used to keep the ASCII spacing correct.


    Reading USENET is like subjecting one's self to retarded kindergartner's.
     
    NameHere, Dec 31, 2009
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Silverstrand
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,184
    zachig
    Jul 3, 2005
  2. chibitul

    DOF on P&S digicams

    chibitul, Sep 13, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    469
    Jeremy
    Sep 16, 2003
  3. Faiser

    DoF preview

    Faiser, Oct 24, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    828
    Godfrey
    Oct 25, 2003
  4. Charles Schuler

    DOF Software

    Charles Schuler, Nov 8, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,156
    Charles Schuler
    Nov 10, 2003
  5. Derek Fountain

    How water resistant is a water resistant lens?

    Derek Fountain, Mar 18, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    373
    Joseph Meehan
    Mar 18, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page